Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:41:30.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan Intentions and Election Day Realities in the Congressional Redistricting Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1985

Richard Born
Richard Born*
Affiliation:
Vassar College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists have done little to resolve the question of whether or not a state party's command of congressional redistricting leads to payoffs in its share of delegation seats. Studies on the topic differ in their conclusions while being marred by methodological shortcomings. In analyzing districting plans from 1952 to 1982, one finds that partisan control of redistricting does have the expected effect on seat outcomes, but only modestly. This relationship, though, has become even more tenuous over time. Since the imposition of the Supreme Court's “one man, one vote” mandates, the partisan gains intended by redistricting schemes have come to depend less heavily on the identity of the controlling party. And regardless of what is intended by redistricting architects, the electorate has become less willing to conform to their expectations, quite plausibly because of incumbents' growing ability to add residents of the new areas to their supporting coalition by election day.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 305 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, A. I. Partisan redistricting and the 1982 congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 1983, 45, 767–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Q. W., & Whiteman, D. Congressional reapportionment in the 1980s: Types and determinants of policy outcomes. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, October 28-30, 1982.Google Scholar
Baker, G. E. Threading the political thicket by tracing the steps of the late Robert G. Dixon, Jr.: An appraisal and appreciation. In Grofman, B., Lijphart, A., McKay, R. B., and Scarrow, H. A. (Eds.). Representation and redistricting issues. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1982, pp. 21–34.Google Scholar
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. The almanac of American politics 1982. Washington, D.C.: Barone, 1981.Google Scholar
Buchanan, C. National GOP pushing hard to capture state legislatures. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, October 25, 1980, pp. 3188–3192.Google Scholar
Buchanan, C. State legislatures: Congressional redistricting at stake as Republicans fight to win increased influence. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 25, 1979, pp. 1751–1754.Google Scholar
Cain, B. E. Assessing the partisan effects of redistricting. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 1-4, 1983.Google Scholar
Congressional mail: What is official business? Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, April 28, 1973, pp. 1024–1026.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. Congressional districts in the 1980s. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1983.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. Congressional districts in the 1970s. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1973, 1975.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly. Massachusetts. In State politics and redistricting, Part 1. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1982, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
Ehrenhalt, A. Incumbency insurance: The extended frank. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, June 19, 1982, p. 1499.Google Scholar
Elliott, W. E. Y. The rise of guardian democracy: The Supreme Court's role in voting rights disputes, 1845-1969. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R. Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1972, 66, 1234–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopoian, J. D., & West, D. M. Trading security for seats: Strategic considerations in the redistricting process. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 11-15, 1984.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., & Scarrow, H. A. Current issues in reapportionment. Law and Policy Quarterly, 1982, 4, 435–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. Congressional representation: Theory and practice in drawing the districts. In Polsby, N.W. (Ed.). Reapportionment in the 1970s. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971, pp. 249–285.Google Scholar
Minnesota—one seat loss. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, December 22, 1961, pp. 1970–1973.Google Scholar
Noragon, J. L. Redistricting, political outcomes, and gerrymandering in the 1960s. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1973, 219, 314–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redistricting in Texas, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, August 6, 1971, pp. 1676–1679.Google Scholar
The Salem Gazette, November 19, 1802. Cited in Griffith, E. C., The rise and development of the gerrymander. Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1907, p. 53.Google Scholar
Scarrow, H. A. Partisan gerrymandering—invidious or benevolent? Gaffney v. Cummings and its aftermath. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Cincinnati, April 15-18, 1981.Google Scholar
Sickels, R. J. Dragons, bacon strips and dumbbells—who's afraid of reapportionment? Yale Law Journal, 1966, 75, 1300–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, E. R. The relationship between seats and votes in two party systems. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 540–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Congress, House. Remarks of Representative Henry U. Johnson. Congressional Record Appendix, vol. 25, 53rd Congress, 1st Session, September 28, 1893.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Congressional district data book (districts of the 88th Congress). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Congressional district data: Districts of the 92nd Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Congressional district data book: 93rd Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.